The Sudan analogy may or may not show the point; it can be debated. But less disputable examples are not hard to find. I think that US role in Bosnia and Serbia (and I am not an apologist for the Milosovic regime) in the 90s come under that category, though H & L would disagree. I hope they would not disagree with the examples of the contra war or US policy in Central America in the 80s in general, or Vietnam, or Indonesia. Many millions died in Vietnam, and you may recall, that when asked by a journalist what the way was about, LBJ unzippered his pants and took out his organ. The Pentagon Papers gave a nicer version of this answer by saying that 70% or thereabouts of the point of the wat was maintaining US prestige.
The US is not, of course, uniquely bad; its foreign policy is cynical, but that is the nature of foreign policy. Moreover the US is a superpower, and so can do more damage than (say) Canada; and for the most part doesn't care because it doesn't have to. But other nations that are regional or local superpowers are also brutal and destructive: Israel in Palestine, France in North Africa, China in Tibet, etc. I am not saying, of course, that "everybody does it it" is an excuse. But the point of Chomsky's analogy is hard to deny if one has an even moderately unblinkered view of US and indeed anyone's foreign policy.
So what's going on? Is the underlying thought related back to the earlier discussion we had about explanation and justification--is the worry that if we say that the US has a heavy-handed foreign policy that often leads to thousands of deaths in the fom of "collateral damage" that we will have said that the instigators of 9/11 were justified? Chomsky doesn't believe that; he's said it was a terrible crime, as indeed has almost every sentient being on the face of the planet who isa ware of these events. Including me, I will add: I want the perpetrators apprehended, brought to justice, tried, and if the evidence is there, convicted and punished. But understanding is necessary if we are to take steps to avoid recurrence of such horrors. But I don't want to reignite this discussion; we've been over it.
It does seem sort of odd to me that Chomsky would bother to reply at length to Leo, as opposed to Hitchens. I mean, who cares what Leo thinks? While Hitch is someone with some weighta nd history on the left, who looks to be a great loss for the good guys. I also agree with James Baird that Chomsky's recent writing seems a bit rigid, formulaic, and lacking in the suppleness and discrimination that it used to have.
jks
So what's the point?
> >
> > James Baird wrote:
> > > Subject: Re: Chomsky: Reply to Casey
> > >
> > > This is really sad to observe.
> > >
> > > A sad end for a great mind.
> > >
> > > Jim Baird
>
>Hardly, it looks like he is just getting started! The man is asa sharp as
>he wa during the last great war effort and the one before that and the one
>before that...it looked like barry bonds up against a little leaguer...
>
>steve
>
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp